NYTimes on Singles: Outdoing Itself Yet Again

I am so tired of reading phoney "statistics." Whenever I see the term statistics, my automatic thought is how have they been doctored, by whom, and for what agenda!

Are 51% of Women Now Living Without A Spouse?

“Only if you include unmarried teenage and college girls still living with their parents, women whose husbands work out of town, are institutionalized, or are separated from husbands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Article

There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

> As the number of people marrying has dropped off in the last
> 45 years, the marriage rate has declined equally for men and
> for women.

This is the major thing going on, but it receives practically no attention, as the topic is quickly turned to "class", where we're diverted away from gender dynamics to economic factors and then buried with a storm of statistics. Just about the time our eyelids are going to drop, we get this:

> In 2005, according to the census, 66.2% of men in
> this age group [35-44] were married, down from 88% in
> 1960; 67.2% of women were married, down from 87.4%.

So the proportion of those who are married at this age has dropped by about 25% from 45 years ago. Of that 38.2% on the female side who aren't married, I'd bet only a fifth or less are either lesbian or hard-core marriage-averse (marriage = oppression) types -- girls remaining girls indefinitely. The other 80% are the ones complaining about men being "intimidated by smart successful women", and all the rest; there has to be a significant percentage of divorced/single moms in this group, who have lesser prospects and complain about that too.

On the male side, I'd bet that about two-thirds of the 33.8% are marriage-averse and quite content. Thus, we hear an awful lot about a man shortage, but nothing about a woman shortage.

The other thing worth addressing is the stat about how there's no longer a "penalty" attached to women getting an education/career so far as marriage goes, as the Maureen Dowd's of the world have claimed for a long time. College educated women now marry at the same or higher rates than their less fortunate sisters. There's even a book on this: "Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women", by Christine Whelan.

The data seem to be in direct conflict with a study which found the more traditional attitudes a male has, the more likely he is to marry -- and subsequently divorce. This study makes perfect sense and is difficult to make go away, unless one presumes colleges are teaching men traditional values, where the contrary is what's happening.

It's more likely that college-bound boys "...are now growing up in a seamless matriarchy; it's like growing up in a socially controlled lab experiment where the only 'perfect color' is lavendar" (Roy), and have thus fully internalized their need to adapt to what women want them to do regardless of their own needs. In other words, they have no perspective of their own, no characteristically male perspective (beyond empty posturing), because their needs have been so discounted over the course of their lives that they don't even think of their own interests (yet). They just do what their gf's want, which is typically to get married.

Since they're going to earn the same (low) wage at that age as their female counterparts in a competitive workplace environment, their ability to provide for a wife as sole breadwinner is much diminished, which makes them less able to offer to a non-college educated working woman the kind of improved life which might previously have induced her to adopt pretty much the traditional wife role in exchange for being freed from the workplace. He starts to look at his peer's earnings as a valuable asset -- she's certainly a better catch than her princess type classmates who want or feel entitled to marry a success-object type guy and live a life high on the hog without having to do anything. This may be fine for a while...

But I think it explains the data. His lessening of options have made him accept what previously would have been considered a lesser quality mate, one who's going to make more demands on him, have a greater ability to divorce him, is more likely to have an affair, etc. Poor guys.

* MB

...is to be expected in any discussion of marriage and family responsibilities these days. As the bomber pilots used to say, if we're catching flak, it means we're over the target.

The reality of our situation, i.e. family law that destroys men and excludes them from their families while leaving them with the bills, the increasing exclusion of men from education and profitable careers, a social climate where misandry is the norm and 40 years of misandric public policy have all come back full-circle to bite women in the ass, and as usual, they're blaming men for their problems and the damage caused by radical, misandric feminism.

The "marriage strike" is nothing more than a natural reaction to misandric policy and family law. I just love the pathetic attempts (such as this article) to shame men back into filling the predetermined social roles in which women prefer to keep us.

Does anyone else remember what feminists had to say about predetermined social roles when it was women they were talking about? As ye sow, so shall ye reap, ladies.

There are a few basic truths that even the simplest of women understand:

1) It only takes one hand to rock the cradle. They want to make damn sure it's theirs, and that someone else (us) is paying the bills.

2) Women learn bright and early that they can use their bodies to manipulate men. If appearances fail, there's always sex. In addition to these natural advantages, they now have the law, too. All they need to do is live with, marry or get impregnated by a man (with or without his permission). Where I live, simply dating a man entitles a woman to call 911, make false accusations and have him thrown out of his own house with government help and without trial or evidence against him.

3) If men refuse to live with them, marry them, or at least impregnate them, they will be required to take responsibility for themselves, something most of them desperately wish to avoid. Let's face it, even with all of the artificial obstacles placed in men's paths these days to benefit women, they still can't compete with us in most parts of the working world. Men take the risks and we do the hard labor. Those are the things that pay well. No amount of handicapping of men will ever change that.

So I think it's perfectly understandable why we now see a society filled with young women trying to out-whore each other and bitter women in their twenties and thirties whining about how men are "commitment phobic" or "irresponsible". They know their gravy train is rapidly being derailed, and all their power over men is evaporating in front of their eyes. You can't get alimony and child support from a man you've never met (most of the time), and you can't call 911 and make false accusations about a man who has the common sense to have nothing to do with you. Unfortunately for feminists, they completely overlooked the very real power that women always had over men, and that power is now going the way of the dodo because of their actions. The myth of equality that feminists spew (but never, ever practice themselves), is finally coming true as men refuse to allow women into positions of power in their lives.

Predictably enough, women aren't very happy about losing their power over us. Predators never like it when their prey escapes.

All of this misandry in the press simply means that we're making progress towards a situation where women don't have any power over men - not the natural power they had long before feminism, not the ability to extort protection from us through chivalry, not even the goodies they can extort from us through the law, because those laws only apply when a man chooses to interact with a woman, and we're now choosing not to interact with them.

The male birth control pill will be a great help if our misandric politicians ever allow it to be marketed (unlikely - involuntary paternity is the only real power most women have over men they've just met or never met), but you can count on that being delayed for years to come. You can also count on the same women who are busy complaining about us today complaining endlessly about how selfish we all are for protecting ourselves from involuntary paternity and doing exactly what women, who have countless advantages in reproductive rights, have done for 50 years. Women know that the male pill will result in the same degree of social change that the female pill did, except this time it will be a change which results in improved rights and more power for men over their own lives, and they absolutely do not want that.

Women need us (individually, as part of society, or both). They don't like it, but that's the truth, and they are terrified that we no longer need them and that they might lose some of their power over us. Guess what, ladies - it's too late to worry about that now, the damage is done. And it's your own damned fault. That light at the end of the tunnel that feminists have been promising you? It's a train, it's loaded with men and it's coming your way in a big hurry.

So, just as Andrea Dworkin and her rabble always claimed women weren't making progress unless men were screaming, I guess this means that men aren't making any progress unless women are screaming. Well, women are certainly screaming now. Just wait until paternity is 100% voluntary, until evidence is required to convict a man of a crime or sentence him to debtor's prison, and alimony becomes an anachronism (this latter change will happen the very instant that women are expected to pay the bulk of said alimony instead of receiving it). Those changes will make the marriage strike seem like a fond memory.

And the inevitable cacophony of wailing and bitching will be unbelievably happy music to my ears.

“What’s becoming more powerful is the idea that economic resources are conducive to stable marriages. Women who have more money or the potential for more money are married to men who have more stable income.”

Marriage is romantically idealized as a soul-mate partnership; but actually it is a business contract.

In our current feminist matriarchal society (the Evil Patriarchy has been permanently sequestered...) marriage is no longer an acutal, binding contract whatsoever.

It's the only so-called business deal where partners stand up in front of god and the state and make solemn vows to abide by the terms of the contract ...

EXCEPT, marriage is the only business deal where either signatory to the contract can wake up on any given morning and say -- "I'm bored and I'm breaking the deal. You haven't violated your part of our contract, but I'll have the house, the car, and 50% of your pension now.... thanks!"

The feminist "journalist" who wrote the piece is obviously puzzled and fretting that young men are increasingly refusing their chivalrous duty to become wage-slaves, domestic servants, sperm donors, and appliances for female "liberation."

(If you want to test female liberation in its practical aspects --- ask a professional woman to change her flat tire, re-light the pilot light on her furnace, or connect the cables that make her DVD player talk to her TV.. ;-)

I appreciate Tom Leykis' take on marriage --

"Marriage is for poor people..."

If you ask me, New York (at least the metropolitan areas) are a cesspool of feminism. The feminist stench emanates from university, permeates into society, and is glorified in the press. Is it any wonder Hitlery has found a home there.

The following is one person's experience having transferred from a small southern town to New York to attend university. Her experiences pretty much sum-up the over-arching mentality in and around the Big Apple.

New York Silences Southern Belle - By NANCY FRENCH
Article

No, not that p-word.

P-O-W-E-R.

(Although if you link the usual p-word + power, it makes the same point only crudely.)

My main beef with feminism has always been that, as an ideology, it suffers from a very infantile theoretical conception of POWER.

The whole Evil Patriarchy schtick depends upon "genderalizing" (new word, I get copyright!) to all working non-powerful men the supposed gender-based POWER that rich elite males enjoy.

In other words, assume that all men are powerful because 2% actually are.

This is feminism's kindergarten level of logic; and yet, Feminism Inc. is a huge success!

Feminists enjoy the one-up-personship of Victim Power, but refuse to acknowledge it.

It is quite possible to be powerful while masquerading as powerless. (Ask any prostitute or Republican politician ...)

(R.M.) - "Unfortunately for feminists, they completely overlooked the very real power that women always had over men, and that power is now going the way of the dodo because of their actions. The myth of equality that feminists spew (but never, ever practice themselves), is finally coming true as men refuse to allow women into positions of power in their lives.
Predictably enough, women aren't very happy about losing their power over us. Predators never like it when their prey escapes. All of this misandry in the press simply means that we're making progress towards a situation where women don't have any power over men ..."

This is an insightful analysis, especially the part about men denying women positions of power.

But there are a few glitches ---

* existing laws permit women to impose tremendous power over men
* the man's "refusal to allow" a female power is cancelled immediately by dialing 911 and stating - "I'm in fear of him." (The blueboy gulag thugs will arrive immediately and impose feminist law...)
* sexual biology is the real bitch in this equation --- heterosexual men desire women and cannot escape that genetic fate.

Male "liberation" cannot mean a life of zero personal association with females.

But, for the present, male survival may require just that.

But there are a few glitches ---

* existing laws permit women to impose tremendous power over men
* the man's "refusal to allow" a female power is cancelled immediately by dialing 911 and stating - "I'm in fear of him." (The blueboy gulag thugs will arrive immediately and impose feminist law...)
* sexual biology is the real bitch in this equation --- heterosexual men desire women and cannot escape that genetic fate.

The male sex drive can be pretty ferocious. But it can and does fade somewhat with age. There are some things that even libido can't force a man into, and we're finally reaching the point where things are just so bad, so terribly prejudiced and misandric that many men are simply opting out. If you're desperate, hookers are cheap (and legal in many places), and jerking off is free.

I understand what you mean about the impracticality of total withdrawal from women or "separatism", Roy. I don't advocate such a life, nor do I practice it. That being said, women have absolutely no power over me. When they attempt to manipulate me with their bodies, I refuse to acknowledge their existence. When they attempt to shame me, I allow my anger at their transparent attempts to injure me to flow freely in their direction without becoming "hostile". Always remember that an incorrect glance is domestic violence, and be mindful of your surroundings when you're getting angry. It's generally best to simply walk away.

When women throw misandric lies (a.k.a. "feminism"), at me, I use my broad knowledge of reality and the statistics behind it to counter them. I absolutely refuse to allow women into positions of power in my life, because women have long since lost the right to hold such a position in my life. Even the women who support me in my activism are not trustworthy, because they can choose at any moment, for any reason or none at all, to avail themselves of the leverage that misandry and its close friends in government have provided. Simply put, I will never trust any human being that can simply "choose" whether or not they are able to destroy me with a phone call. That's not up to them - I decide who has power over me, and none of those people are female.

So, I say continue to interact with women, but do so with the knowledge that they are predators disguised as house pets (credit to Fight Club for that line). At any moment, any one of them can simply "choose" to destroy your entire life. Treat them with same respect you would use with a mixture of violently explosive and unpredictable chemicals.

"They ["modern" women] are harder to please, and hence pleased less often."
- H.L. Mencken

So women are now claiming that they're independent, earning their own money, and therefore don't need any man. They're happy being single (even though it's still men's fault they are single).

Uhm, so it really was always merely about money after all -- just like the cynics and "woman-haters" said?

* MB

Well said, MB.

Don't you just love this stuff:

Women/Media/Politicians: "Men and women are equal, women are entitled to (insert gender privilege here), women should have the same outcomes as men and it's OK if we penalize and discriminate against men to get them."

vs.

Me: "that woman is a criminal and should serve the same sentence as a man"

Women/Media/Politicians: "But women are different".

It appears that we're "equal", but women will always be more "equal" than men.

I would not recommend hookers or strippers or their ilk as a solution because they are the absolute height of untrustworthy women who are interested in the almighty dollar and are gleefully ecstatic when they destroy men in that pursuit. Three words: Crystal Gale Magnum

Jerking off is the only safe way as long as you don't use the internet to assist in that, as you could end up with your ISP calling the cops on you because your computer accessed a server they believe (they don't need to prove anything) has child porn on it and the cops will arrest you whether or not that particular server also host hundreds of other non-porn related web sites. Use caution: proxy servers at all times when accessing the internet these days.

But also, the problem with using prostitutes these days is also heightened by what will no doubt end up as the world wide poster case for why men are evil and prostitutes are virtuous innocent victims is the Robert Pikton case that is ongoing in British Columbia right now and is expected to last 1 year and is already in 15 minute rotation on all major Canadian news networks. After hearing about it every 15 minutes for one year all of Canada is likely to be convinced that the Canadian law makes perfect sense regarding prostitution: Prostitution is legal in Canada, hiring a prostitute is illegal.

That case will no doubt be used to it's absolute fullest to illustrate the plight of women world wide for decades (maybe centuries) to come. I expect at least 5 feature films, 49 documentaries (one for each alleged victim), hundreds of books, law courses and millions of victims rights pamphlets and documentation and educational material like billboards, school seminars, infomercials, police/court training materials etc... I fully expect that one case to create a billion dollar industry revolving around it. After all, we still talk about Jack the Ripper and he only killed 5 hookers, this guy may have killed 49 if the media is to be believed. It pisses me off because that case alone is such a huge blow to the MRA movement because of the emotional trump card it represents in getting more misandric laws passed.

Oh, and RandomMan, better be careful none of the men who you allow to have power over you have a women who has power over them as well. Women like to prey on their victims through use of their other victims as weapons. "Violently explosive and unpredictable chemicals" indeed.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.